Lu Zhang1, Benyun Wang2, Pijian Cao1, Qinglin Zhang1, Xunwei Liu3, Min Li4. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Peony People's Hospital of Heze City (The Central Hospital of Heze City), No. 2111, Kangzhuang Road, Heze, 274000, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Peony People's Hospital of Heze City (The Central Hospital of Heze City), No. 2111, Kangzhuang Road, Heze, 274000, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, 960 Hospital of PLA (The General Hospital of Jinan Command), No. 25, Shifan Road, Jinan, 250031, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, 960 Hospital of PLA (The General Hospital of Jinan Command), No. 25, Shifan Road, Jinan, 250031, Shandong Province, People's Republic of China. liminyingxiang@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacies of percutaneous osteoplasty (POP) and combination therapy with percutaneous osteoplasty and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (POPTACE) for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases. METHODS: A retrospective study of 100 patients with pelvic bone metastases who had been treated by POP (n = 50) and POPTACE (n = 50) was conducted in this work. The clinical efficacies of these two treatments were evaluated by comparing their pain and functional abilities and bone metastases ability at the pre- and post-operative time points. RESULTS: POPTACE and POP treatments had no significant differences (P > 0.05) in VAS scores and KPS scores. Concerning tumor response, a partial response in 37 of 50 (74%) patients at 1 month for the POPTACE group and a partial response in 26 of 50 (52%) patients at 1 month for the POPC group were observed (P = 0.04). Although POPTACE and POP treatments had significant and similar ability in pain relief and functional recovery ability for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases, POPTACE treatment had a significantly better tumor response ability (partial response and stable response) compared with POP treatment. CONCLUSION: Both POP and POPTACE were effective methods for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases. Moreover, these initial outcomes suggest POPTACE treatment may be better than POP treatment. POPTACE treatment has great value and is worth promoting vigorously in orthopedics clinics.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacies of percutaneous osteoplasty (POP) and combination therapy with percutaneous osteoplasty and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (POPTACE) for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases. METHODS: A retrospective study of 100 patients with pelvic bone metastases who had been treated by POP (n = 50) and POPTACE (n = 50) was conducted in this work. The clinical efficacies of these two treatments were evaluated by comparing their pain and functional abilities and bone metastases ability at the pre- and post-operative time points. RESULTS: POPTACE and POP treatments had no significant differences (P > 0.05) in VAS scores and KPS scores. Concerning tumor response, a partial response in 37 of 50 (74%) patients at 1 month for the POPTACE group and a partial response in 26 of 50 (52%) patients at 1 month for the POPC group were observed (P = 0.04). Although POPTACE and POP treatments had significant and similar ability in pain relief and functional recovery ability for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases, POPTACE treatment had a significantly better tumor response ability (partial response and stable response) compared with POP treatment. CONCLUSION: Both POP and POPTACE were effective methods for the treatment of pelvic bone metastases. Moreover, these initial outcomes suggest POPTACE treatment may be better than POP treatment. POPTACE treatment has great value and is worth promoting vigorously in orthopedics clinics.